Incite 6/16/2010: Fenced in

I spent last weekend at my 20th college reunion. I dutifully flew into Ithaca, NY to see many Cornell friends and (fraternity) brothers. It was a great trip, but I did have an experience that reminded me I’m no spring chicken any more. I guess I could consider the unbelievable hangover I had on Saturday morning as the first indication that I can’t behave like a 20-year-old and expect no consequences. But it gets better. We were closing da Palms on Saturday night and an undergrad called me over because he had about 3/4 of a pitcher left and graciously asked for some help. I scurried over (because who turns down free beer?) and we started chatting. So he asked me, “When did you graduate?” I responded that I was Class of 1990. He looked at me cross-eyed and I figured he was just respecting my beer drinking prowess. Not so much. He then said, “Wow. I was born in 1989.” Uh. This kid was crapping his pants when I graduated from college. I literally have T-shirts that are older than this guy. That put everything into perspective: 20 years is a long time. Of course the campus has changed a lot as well. Lots more buildings, but the biggest change was the ever-present fences. In the last year, there have been numerous suicides on campus. It’s actually very sad that kids today can’t deal with the pressure and have no perspective that whatever it is, and however hard it feels, it will pass. So they jump off any number of bridges overlooking Ithaca’s beautiful gorges. Splat. So the Cornell administration figured one way to stop the jumpers is to put 10-foot-high fences on all the bridges. It now looks more like a detainment camp than an Ivy League university. That’s sad too. Cornell is one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been. Now not so much. It’s still a campus, it just feels different. Being the engineers many of my friends are, we tried to come up with better solutions. The ideas (after a number of beers, as I recall) ranged from a big airbag on the bottom of the gorge to a high speed blower to keep the jumper suspended in air (like those Vegas rides). We also talked about nets and other ideas, of course none really feasible. I guess I’ll just have to become accustomed to the fences, and remember how things were. With the understanding that like my ability to recover quickly from a night of binge drinking, some things are destined to stay in the past. – Mike. Photo credits: “Fenced In” originally uploaded by Mike Rothman Incite 4 U Getting to know your local Hoover – No, this isn’t about vacuums, but about getting to know your local law enforcement personnel. It seems the FBI is out there educating folks about how and when to get them involved in breaches. The Bureau is also taking a more proactive stance in sharing information with the financials and other corporates. All this is good stuff, and a key part of your incident response plan needs to be interfacing with law enforcement. So defining your organization’s rules of engagement sooner rather than later is a good thing. – MR String theory – Kelly Jackson Higgins had the most interesting post of the past week, covering Dan Kaminsky’s announcement of Interpolique. Actually, the story is mostly a pre-announcement for Dan’s Black Hat presentation in Vegas later this summer, but the teaser is intriguing. The tool that Kaminsky is describing would automatically format code – with what I assume is some type of pre-compiler – making it far more difficult to execute injected code via string variables. The only burden on the developer would be to define strings in such a way that the pre-compiler recognizes them and corrects the code prior to compilation/execution. That and remembering to run the tool. This is different than something like Arxan, which acts like a linker after compilation. Philosophically both approaches sound like good ideas. But Interpolique should be simpler to implement and deploy, especially if Recursion Ventures can embed the technology into development environments. Dan is dead right that “… string-injection flaws are endemic to the Web, cross all languages …” – the real question is whether this stops injection attacks across all languages. I guess we have to wait until Black Hat to find out. – AL Hatfields and McCoys, my ass – Evidently there is a feud between Symantec and McAfee. I guess a VP shot another VP and now the clans have been at war for generations. Computer security changes fundamentally every couple years. And fervent competition is always a good thing for customers. Prices go down and innovation goes up. But to say the AV market is a two-horse race seems wrong. To get back to the Coke vs. Pepsi analogy used in this story, in this market Dr. Pepper and 7Up each have a shot because some customers decide they need a fundamentally different drink. Security is about much more than just the endpoint, and if the Hatfields or McCoys take their eyes off the Microsofts and the HPs, they will end up in the annals of history, like the DECs and the Wangs. – MR Speed may kill… – Sophos is hoping that the security industry has a short memory. They just announced a ‘Live Protection’ offering in their endpoint suite that uses a cloud service to push signature updates. Right, that’s not novel, but they are using speed as the differentiator. So you can get real-time updates. Of course that assumes you won’t have a Bad DAT(e) try to slip your devices a roofie that renders them useless. Needless to say, there is a bunch of marketing hocus-pocus going on here, since Sophos is also talking about their speed gain resulting from not pushing full signature updates, but doing some analysis in the cloud. Ah, calling Dr. Latency – this is something

Read Post

Take Our Data Security Survey & Win an iPad

One of the biggest problems in security is that we rarely have a good sense of which controls actually improve security outcomes. This is especially true for newer areas like data security, filled with tools and controls that haven’t been as well tested or widely deployed as things like firewalls. Thanks to all the great feedback you sent in on our drafts, we are happy to kick off our big data security survey. This one is a bit different than most of the others you’ve seen floating around, because we are focusing more on effectiveness (technically perceived) of controls rather than losses & incidents. We do have some incident-related questions, but only what we need to feed into the effectiveness results. As with most of our surveys, we’ve set this one up so you can take it anonymously, and all the raw results (anonymized, in spreadsheet format) will be released after our analysis. Since we have a sponsor for this one (Imperva), we actually have a little budget and will be giving away a 32gb WiFi iPad to a random participant. You don’t need to provide an email address to take the survey, but you do if you want the iPad. If we get a lot of recipients (say over 200) we’ll cough up for more iPads so the odds stay better than the lottery. Click here to take the survey, and please spread the word. We designed it to only take 10-20 minutes. Even if you aren’t doing a lot with data security, we need your responses to balance the results. With our surveys we also use something called a “registration code” to keep track of where people found out about it. We use this to get a sense of which social media channels people use. If you take the survey based on this post, please use “Securosis”. If you re-post this link, feel free to make up your own code and email it to us, and we will let you know how many people responded to your referral – get enough and we can give you a custom slice of the data. Thanks! Our plan is to keep this open for a few weeks. Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.